Howdy guys, not sure how active this forum is anymore but this seemed like the right place to share this article. I feel like Bryan, Blade et al were always sort of my lodestar(s) when it came to interpreting hypertrophy research. So, in playing catch up and looking at more recent hypertrophy research, I came across this rather compelling video by Menno Henselmans: Note that Blade is in the audience Menno gives a pretty strong argument that amongst the 3 usual candidates for muscle growth, i.e. muscle damage, mechanical tension and metabolic stress, mechanical tension seems the most dominant, with damage being correlated to growth mostly by its relationship to mechanical tension, and metabolic stress helping drive growth mainly in situations where it improves recruitment-->mechanical tension (e.g. Kaatsu stuff). I link this video because it provides a good background to then examine this article: http://myojournal.com/progressive-overload-fallacies/ Here Brian Minor lays out a case that load progression per se is not actually necessary to induce hypertrophy, i.e. progressive loading of the weight itself isn't the stimulus per se, but rather a natural consequence of having produced hypertrophy. To quote Brian: This is an interesting way of putting it and I think I've had variations of this discussion many, may times in the past here, at Lyle's old forum etc. Basically the idea that, on an acute, this session basis, you need to do enough *now* to grow, and getting stronger, i.e. the performance increase, would be a natural consequence of doing that over longer periods of time. In Bryan's original rationale for HST he actually emphasized this logic, describing the catch 22 he encountered in his own training where, to get stronger past a point, he had to get bigger, so he had to find a way to grow again without just adding more weight to the bar, as he was already running into his strength limits. Hence the logic of strategically deconditioning-->reintroduce adequate mechanical overload-->stay ahead of the adaptive curve until you run into your strength limits over some period of time-->do it all again as the HST model, more or less. The one thing I see missing in Brian Minor's article here, that I kind of see missing in general amongst the modern hypertrophy crowd, is treating hypertrophy as a sort of contextless pursuit where, if you simply accrue enough tension-time at full fiber recruitment/mechanical loading, you'll just grow. Rather than being an interrelationship between the conditioning of the tissue and the magnitude of that loading ala what Bryan originally proposed with HST. Which, as an aside, I noticed a change of terminology - the repeated bout effect seems to be addressing muscle damage *specifically*, and resistance to that, at least the way that most of these guys are using the term. As per Menno's talk above, since muscle damage per se may not be a primary determinant of hypertrophy, a more accurate term for describing our inability to keep growing with a set weight/performance might be something like "anabolic resistance," i.e. your resistance to the anabolic cascade initiated by exposure to sufficient mechanical loading. If Bryan or anyone else could clear up whether these are similar or separate concepts, I'd appreciate it. But yah, just wanted to share this and hoping there are still a few people around who could offer their thoughts on the subject. In trying to catch up again on the latest happenings in the hypertrophy research world, I have found some of my previous beliefs somewhat challenged and am attempting to modify them where appropriate.